National Geographic wrote:Outside scholars applauded the discovery but cautioned against too hastily accepting the site as the oldest discovered Buddhist shrine without more analysis.

"Archaeologists love claiming that they have found the earliest or the oldest of something," says archaeologist Ruth Young of the United Kingdom's University of Leicester in an email message.

It's delightful to have some good material, of course. Fascinating in any event. If this pans out, though, the Nikayas/Agamas are looking more like ~400-year compilations instead of ~200-year ones, which would have interesting consequences.

I wonder how this will interface with the textual analysis already done, though.

The exact date of the Buddha's birth is disputed, with Nepalese authorities favoring 623 B.C., and other traditions favoring more recent dates, around 400 B.C.

Regardless, by 249 B.C. Lumbini had became one of the four sacred centers of Buddhism, marked by sanctifying inscriptions and a pillar left there in 249 B.C. by the Indian emperor Ashoka, who helped spread Buddhism across Asia.

Later abandoned, the site was rediscovered in 1896 and re-established as a worship center, the Maya Devi temple, which is now a World Heritage site.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

My guess is when you date charcoal you find in an archaelogy dig, its so and so many years +/- 200 years or so, these tests are certainly not 100% accurate. Same with Carbon 14 dating its not year specific accurate, and when you're dating things millions of years old it can be +/- a million years, etc etc.

18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

In his introduction to his Discourse on the Dhammacakka Sutta, the Mahāsi Sayādaw said (in 1962):

Thus it was on the first watch of the full-moon of July, 2,551 years ago that this first discourse was delivered by the Blessed One. Western scholars regard this estimation as 60 years too early. According to their calculation, it was only 2,491 years ago that the first discourse was taught. As the event of the Turning of the Wheel of Dhamma took place in the East, I would prefer to go by the oriental calculation and regard the first discourse as being taught 2,551 years ago.¹

¹ Now 2602 years ago in 2013, the year 2557 of the Buddhist Era (as measured from the parinibbāna).

"This is one of those rare occasions when belief, tradition, archaeology and science actually come together," lead study author Robin Coningham, professor at Durham University in the United Kingdom, said at a press briefing Monday.

"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "--------------------------------------------"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation, Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "

I am concerned that some people might misinterpret the meaning of "push back the buddha's birthdate".I would like to make it clear that this discovery does not change the date upon which the Buddha was born......the Buddha was born on one particular day and no amount of scientific discovery will change that. It would be more accurate if the article had said that the new discovery may push back the estimate of the buddha's birthdate.......no one knows the buddha's birthday and scientists are trying to estimate when it was......so the discovery they just made indicates that their previous estimate should perhaps be moved back.chownah

chownah wrote:I am concerned that some people might misinterpret the meaning of "push back the buddha's birthdate".I would like to make it clear that this discovery does not change the date upon which the Buddha was born......the Buddha was born on one particular day and no amount of scientific discovery will change that. It would be more accurate if the article had said that the new discovery may push back the estimate of the buddha's birthdate.......no one knows the buddha's birthday and scientists are trying to estimate when it was......so the discovery they just made indicates that their previous estimate should perhaps be moved back.chownah

If anyone is interested the article can be purchased for £15 here http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0871104.htmI would be interested in what is said in this mailing list if it is ok to share the list location or certain posts.

sphairos wrote:Hello everyone,

famous Buddhologist and Tibetologist M. Kapstein wrote at some Buddhist scholars' mailing list:

"Dear Friends,

An interesting article in today's New York Times discusses recent finds at Lumbini.

It references an article in the current issue of the journal Antiquity that I havenot yet seen, and so I cannot say whether the NYT summary is fully accurate.A few problems to note:

The date of Asoka, of course, is not at all taken as the date of the Buddha. Even the'short chronology' would place the Buddha's passing a century or so earlier.

It is not at all clear to me why the discovery of a sixth century BCE structure at Lumbinithought to be a "shrine" warrants the assumption that it is a Buddhist shrine.

In any case, I look forward to hearing what specialists in early Indian Buddhism mighthave to say.

Matthew

Matthew KapsteinDirecteur d'études,Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes"

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

This is pretty big news; hope it pans out the way it is looking so far. I believe previous to this the only hard-core archeological evidence of the life of Buddha were the Edicts of Ashoka, the Tipitaka and the matching of the archeological finds at Buddhist sites with the Tipitaka account. This would add a much older account and evidence.

sphairos wrote:"It is not at all clear to me why the discovery of a sixth century BCE structure at Lumbinithought to be a "shrine" warrants the assumption that it is a Buddhist shrine."

Good posting, sphairos!

What evidence is there that this structure has anything to do with the Buddha at all?.....so far the only connection is it's geographical location being coincident with where the Buddha lived. Were there no shrines that existed before the Buddha was born?chownah

It is still too early to conclusively say this is a Buddhist shrine. It is a shrine around a tree and Maya devi did grab a branch when she gave birth and then of course the Buddhist veneration of Bodhi trees. Other traditions also venerated trees, however there is this from National Geographic report:

"The tree roots appear to have been fertilized, and although bodhigara are found in older Indian traditions, the shrine lacked the signs of sacrifices or offerings found at such sites."

So far we have as (circumstantial) evidence: 1. a 6th century BCE shrine found at Lumbini - the place of Buddha's birth, 2. a shrine housing a tree3. no signs of sacrifices and offerings as found in shrines of other traditions.

Any one of the above would not be much evidence, but all 3 together provides some circumstantial evidence worth considering, although still not conclusive . . . yet.

chownah wrote:If the tree roots appear to have been fertilized perhaps the structure was a lavatory......chownah

But seriously, if anyone buys and reads the actual journal article, please let us know the details of the study. Hopefully these professional people based their weighty claims on more substantial evidence than what has been reported in the news articles.

here is what Buddhist scholars J. Silk and A. Bayer have so far said about the topic:

"Subject: Re: ARTICLE> The Date of the Buddha,

Dear Colleagues,

Regarding the recent report from Lumbini, mentioned by MatthewKapstein, as one might expect, the facts do not bear out the hype.

I read the article in question yesterday (before the embargo waslifted) because a journalist contacted me about it (you can read aboutit in the Volkskrant if you read Dutch...), but when Matthew andothers read the article, what will be evident is that what has beenfound is wood beneath the Asokan layer. There is *no* indication thatthe wood is connected with the Buddha in any way shape or form. It islogical to think that a tree shrine on the spot considered to be thebirthplace of the Buddha could easily have predated anything aboutBuddhism--of course, the tree selected as "the tree" under which theBuddha was born should be a sacred tree, hence it had a shrineassociated with it.

And in fact, except for a single--I would say incautious--sentence,the article basically says this. I'm sure it will be spun for all it'sworth, but there's nothing there, except perhaps (and even this is not100% clear) some evidence that, despite an earlier botched excavationby a Japanese team (which, the authors imply, threw away valuableevidence), the traditional spot rebuilt by Asoka had earlier a woodenstructure upon it. What that structure may have been, and whether itcould conceivably have had any connection with the Buddha--noevidence at all!

Jonathan"

"Dear Colleagues,

Thanks to Matthew Kapstein for the NYT article and his criticalremarks.

The NYT article and several others follow a pattern that I haveobserved with media, especially online media, when dealing with newsensational discoveries: Almost none of the online journalists have(/take the) time to ask for a second expert opinion when they get thenews agency reports. If at all, they contact the discoverer, simplybecause it is the name they have at hand.

Another of the issues involved is that archeology, dealing withmaterial things, seems to be considered "science", while the study ofhistory as a whole is just "humanities" (at least in the anglophoneworld) and thus less reliable.

These were my experiences when dealing with the "Lama WearingTrousers" last year.

I have now organized a panel by the title "Authenticity, Uncertainty,and Deceit in Buddhist Art and Archaeology" at the IABS 2014 in Vienna- to which everyone interested in such methodological questions iswarmly invited.

I have now organized a panel by the title "Authenticity, Uncertainty,and Deceit in Buddhist Art and Archaeology" at the IABS 2014 in Vienna- to which everyone interested in such methodological questions iswarmly invited.

Dr. Achim Bayer

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

I would say, that if there is not found any strong epigraphical, inscriptional (which says something like "This is a shrine devoted to the Almighty Buddha"), sculptural (or other pertaining to the domain of the Buddhist art) evidence (and there seems to be no such evidence), there will be no possible way to connect the discovery to the Buddha or early Buddhism.

The tree-worship has been ubiquitous both in Ancient and Modern India, Sri Lanka and other neighboring countries for millennia. There are lots of trees and tree-shrines which are "just sacred", no one makes offerings to them.

And, also, I would say, that recent stratigraphical, text-critical, historical and doctrinal research into the early Buddhist texts makes other dates for the Great Passing of the Buddha than 400+-10 and 368+-10 BC impossible.

Last edited by sphairos on Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.